Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sanjo Bai Kewat vs Ashok Rajak on 26 July, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 26 th OF JULY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 4040 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SANJO BAI KEWAT W/O LATE SHIVRAM
KEWAT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE GRAM RITHORI TEHSIL PANAGAR
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ABHISHEK KEWAT S/O LATE SHIVRAM KEWAT,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER
R/O GRAM RITHORI TEHSIL PANAGAR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KUMARI POOJA KEWAT D/O LATE SHIVRAM
KEWAT, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMER R/O GRAM RITHORI TEHSIL PANAGAR
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. GOVIND KEWAT S/O LATE SHIVRAM KEWAT,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER
R/O GRAM RITHORI TEHSIL PANAGAR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY MS. NEELAM GOEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ASHOK RAJAK S/O LATE BAL KISHAN RAJAK,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GRAM RITHORI TEHSIL
PANAGAR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAMSWAROOP S/O SALLU KISHAN RAJAK, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O GRAM RITHORI TEHSIL
PANAGAR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. GOPAL KEWAT S/O LATE PYARE LAL KEWAT,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O GRAM RITHORI
TEHSIL PANAGAR DISTRICT JABALPUR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 7/27/2023
7:28:30 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR JABALPUR DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI V.K. SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.4 -
STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, being aggrieved of order dated 21.06.2023, passed by learned X
Additional District Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.), in MCA No.299/2022, setting aside
the orders of the trial Court, whereby, injunction was granted by the learned IV
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jabalpur, in RCS No.206-A/2022, in favour of the
present petitioners.
2. Petitioners' contention is that the land in question contained in Survey
No.538/2 and Survey No.13 belong to their father-in-law Gopal Prasad Kewat.
Gopal Prasad Kewat upon death of husband of petitioner No.1 Smt. Sanjo Bai
Kewat i.e. late Shiv Ram Kewat granted cultivating rights in favour of
petitioners. They are cultivating the said land, but the private respondents are
trying to interfere in their peaceful possession, therefore, trial Court granted
injunction. Now, on the basis of certain documents which were produced
under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
CPC for short) by the defendants, learned First Appellate Court has set aside
the order of injunction granted by the trial Court and has vacated the stay.
3. Ku. Neelam Goel, extraneously, submits that impugned order is illegal and
arbitrary. It has failed to take into consideration the fact of cultivating
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 7/27/2023
7:28:30 PM
possession of the petitioners. She submits that she has a judgment in her
support which she proposes to file subsequently in a day or two.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the
record, it is necessary to revert to the basics of law, namely, to obtain an order
of injunction, parties are required to establish three ingredients, namely, prima
facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
5. Firstly, if there was any interference in the land being owned by Gopal
Prasad Kewat, then locus was available with Gopal Prasad Kewat to file a Civil
Suit claiming injunction. Gopal Prasad Kewat admittedly did not file any Civil
Suit. Admittedly, petitioners do not have any title in the suit land. By virtue of
children of the deceased son of Gopal Prasad Kewat and wife of deceased son
of Gopal Prasad Kewat, according to them, they are cultivating the said land.
There is no agreement brought on record by which land was given to them for
cultivation. On the contrary, defendants produced along with an application
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC certain documents to point out that Gopal Prasad
Kewat and his brother Hari Lal Kewat had executed a registered sale deed in
favour of Bal Kishan Rajak for selling land situated at Village Rithori, contained
in Survey No.430/2. When it was discovered that said land was never recorded
in the names of Gopal Prasad Kewat and his brother Harilal Kewat, a report
with the police was lodged for commission of fraud. Thereafter, to save
themselves, Gopal Prasad Kewat and Hari Lal Kewat executed an agreement to
sell land contained in Survey No.438/1 and 438/2 in equal portion of half acre
each constituting one acre. Thereafter, sale deed was registered in regard to
land contained in Survey No.538/1 in the name of wife of Bal Kishan Rajak on
24.02.202. Gopal Prasad Rajak did not register land contained in Survey
No538/2, which is the subject matter of the agreement to sale.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 7/27/2023
7:28:30 PM
6. Taking all these facts into consideration, learned First Appellate Court has
rightly held that none of the three ingredients for grant of injunction are available
in favour of the plaintiffs who are neither the owners nor the title holders of the
suit property and therefore, has rightly dismissed the order of grant of
injunction passed by the trial Court. There is no illegality in the impugned order
as petitioners in the present petition have also failed to establish three
ingredients for grant of injunction. This order does not call for interference in
the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
7. Petition fails and is dismissed.
8. At this stage, Ms. Neelam Goel, after committing a professional
misconduct of not bringing the judgments to the Court and seeking time to
produce judgments, submits that petitioners are entitled to inherit the said land
and therefore, their rights could not have been taken away. This argument is
erroneous on face of record. Land is still in the name of Gopal Prasad Kewat.
Nobody prevented Gopal Prasad Kewat from filing a suit, but probably Gopal
Prasad Kewat was aware of the weakness of his suit in the teeth of the
agreement, which was executed by him to save himself from the police
proceedings for committing fraud in relation to the earlier sale deed of 1971,
and is apparently using his daughter in law and grand children as a cover up.
That cover will not provide them with any material to show any prima facie
case. Therefore, again this Court is of the opinion that there is no material in
favour of the petitioners to show indulgence.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 7/27/2023
7:28:30 PM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 7/27/2023
7:28:30 PM
